State v. Lance

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




              THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LANCE, APPELLANT.
                       [Cite as State v. Lance, 

.]
Criminal procedure—Classification as sexual predator—Court of appeals’
          judgment on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II affirmed on authority of State
          v. Cook—Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed on Propositions of
          Law Nos. III, IV, and V.
(Nos. 98-603 and 98-605—Submitted October 13, 1998—Decided November 25,
                                           1998.)
 CERTIFIED by and APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No.
                                        C-970301.
                                  __________________
          Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sherry
Green, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
          Schuh & Goldberg and Raul E. Tellez, for appellant.
                                  __________________
          {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals on Propositions of Law Nos. I
and II is affirmed on the authority of State v. Cook (1998), 

, 

.
          {¶ 2} Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and V are dismissed as having been
improvidently allowed.
          DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ.,
concur.
          MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in part and dissent in part.
                                  __________________
                         SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




     COOK, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
     {¶ 3} I dissent from the dismissal of Propositions of Law Nos. III, IV, and
V.
     MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
                           __________________




                                      2